3 ms·

If you get up to the point where they start charging you .10 outbound, you have already transferred 150TB and been charged $17900 (1st 10TB @ .17 = $1700; next

by timf 17y ago

If you get up to the point where they start charging you .10 outbound, you have already transferred 150TB and been charged $17900 (1st 10TB @ .17 = $1700; next 40TB @ .13 = $5200; next 100TB @ .11 = $11000)

jacquesm 17y ago
Yep. That was my point, if you want to get to $.10 you're in the highest tier, so they make you pay through the nose. And the 150 TB @ $17900 works out to a shade under $.12 / G. But it doesn't matter which 'tier' you end up in, it's 6 times the going rate, the only advantage is you don't have the write-off on the hardware, that's amazons problem. But if you push significant bandwidth then that's a minor part of your costs anyway. I really wonder if there is anybody that does significant bandwidth right now that has their data served from a cloud service and what the rationale is behind that. Convenience is great, but if it affects your bottom line so strongly then it is probably wiser to do your own thing. Even on leased hardware (such as rackspace or theplanet) you are still off cheaper, a 10MB flat rate machine with a 2GHz cpu, 1G of ram, 2x200G drives sold for $200 / month two years ago. I don't know what the going rate is today but I would expect it to be cheaper.
- timf 17y ago
  Oh, I agree. There are nice unlimited (NIC saturation at least) deals for both inbound and outbound, you'd be insane to use EC2 for this level of traffic.
- jdelsman 17y ago
  > But if you push significant bandwidth then that's a minor part of your costs anyway. If you push significant bandwidth, up to the point that you're paying $17,000 per month, you should look at a provider that provides peering arrangements (i.e., lower costs), and moving away from EC2 where bandwidth is terribly overpriced. For instance, you can get a Cogent 100MB pipe at most US datacentres for as little as $400 per month. That would be 32 terabytes of data right there, so getting up to 150TB of data would be about $1,800, or about 10% of your bandwidth bill with EC2. There is obviously much, much more that goes into this, but you get the idea.

by timf 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Yep. That was my point, if you want to get to $.10 you're in the highest tier, so they make you pay through the nose. And the 150 TB @ $17900 works out to a shade under $.12 / G. But it doesn't matter which 'tier' you end up in, it's 6 times the going rate, the only advantage is you don't have the write-off on the hardware, that's amazons problem. But if you push significant bandwidth then that's a minor part of your costs anyway. I really wonder if there is anybody that does significant bandwidth right now that has their data served from a cloud service and what the rationale is behind that. Convenience is great, but if it affects your bottom line so strongly then it is probably wiser to do your own thing. Even on leased hardware (such as rackspace or theplanet) you are still off cheaper, a 10MB flat rate machine with a 2GHz cpu, 1G of ram, 2x200G drives sold for $200 / month two years ago. I don't know what the going rate is today but I would expect it to be cheaper.

timf 17y ago
Oh, I agree. There are nice unlimited (NIC saturation at least) deals for both inbound and outbound, you'd be insane to use EC2 for this level of traffic.
jdelsman 17y ago
> But if you push significant bandwidth then that's a minor part of your costs anyway. If you push significant bandwidth, up to the point that you're paying $17,000 per month, you should look at a provider that provides peering arrangements (i.e., lower costs), and moving away from EC2 where bandwidth is terribly overpriced. For instance, you can get a Cogent 100MB pipe at most US datacentres for as little as $400 per month. That would be 32 terabytes of data right there, so getting up to 150TB of data would be about $1,800, or about 10% of your bandwidth bill with EC2. There is obviously much, much more that goes into this, but you get the idea.